Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant Leotis Payne was convicted of, inter alia, felony murder, robbery in the first degree, and attempt to tamper with a juror. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court improperly joined for trial the felony murder and jury tampering cases against the Defendant for trial, but the error was harmless; (2) the trial court improperly admitted the testimony of one of the state's witnesses regarding an alleged threat made by Defendant, but the error was harmless; and (3) three statements by the prosecutor during closing and rebuttal arguments were improper, but those improprieties did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial, and therefore, Defendant was not entitled to a new trial due to the prosecutorial improprieties. In affirming the judgments of the trial court, the Court also overruled State v. King and its progeny, which recognized a presumption in favor of joinder in criminal cases.

Defendant Osibisa Hall pleaded guilty to one count of possession of marijuana with intent to sell and two counts of violation of a protective order. Defendant subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas and vacate the judgments of conviction, claiming that the trial court did not fulfill its obligation to address him personally and determine that he understood the immigration consequences of his pleas. The court denied the motion. The appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court failed to comply substantially with Conn. Gen. Stat. 54-1j when it neglected to personally address Defendant regarding the potential immigration consequences of his pleas. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, holding (1) substantial compliance with section 54-1j can be established even if the court does not address the defendant personally; and (2) the trial court substantially complied with section 54-1j in the present case.

After a jury trial, Defendant Darryl W. was convicted of criminal attempt to commit aggravated sexual assault in the first degree, sexual assault in the third degree and kidnapping in the first degree with a firearm. The trial court also found Defendant guilty of violation of probation based on his conviction of the criminal offenses. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the trial court, holding (1) Defendant failed to preserve his claims that the court improperly instructed the jury regarding the elements of aggravated sexual assault in the first degree and kidnapping in the first degree with a firearm and regarding his affirmative defense to kidnapping in the first degree with a firearm; and (2) certain comments by the senior assistant state's attorney during closing argument did not constitute prosecutorial impropriety.

After a jury trial, Defendant Herman Apodaca was convicted of felony murder, conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree, and robbery in the first degree. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) trial court properly dismissed a juror midtrial for cause; (2) the trial court properly instructed the juror on the felony murder count; (3) under the facts of the case, the court did not violate its obligations by declining to rephrase the entire conspiracy instruction in laypersons' terms after the jury requested further instructions; and (4) the trial court's instructions on conspiracy to commit robbery were not misleading, and therefore, Defendant's due process rights were not violated by the instructions.

Defendant Alia Altajir pleaded nolo contendere to charges of misconduct with a motor vehicle. The trial court imposed a sentence of five years' incarceration, suspended after one year, and five years of probation. Defendant later violated the special conditions of her probation. At a subsequent dispositional hearing, the trial court admitted undated photographs gathered from Facebook, on which Defendant maintained a profile. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court had violated her right to due process by admitting the photographs. The appellate court determined that this claim was unpreserved and did not merit review. The Supreme Court affirmed on the ground that the photographs satisfied the minimum standard of reliability constitutionally required to admit evidence at the dispositional phase of a probation revocation hearing.

Defendants, an attorney and a law firm, represented Plaintiff Robert Grimm in an action to dissolve Grimm's marriage. Plaintiff subsequently brought a legal malpractice action against Defendants. The trial court granted Defendants' motion for judgment because Plaintiff had not disclosed an expert when one was required and, therefore, could not establish a prima facie case for legal malpractice as to Defendants' breach of the standard of care. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in (1) determining that the critical statements concerning Defendants made by the Court in its opinion affirming the underlying divorce action were not sufficient expert evidence of Defendants' malpractice; and (2) considering Defendants' motion for judgment the day after the motion was filed and the day before jury selection began in order to avoid the delay and expense of a trial in which Plaintiff could not present any evidence to support his claim.

Following a jury trial, Defendant John Papandrea was convicted of nine counts of larceny in the first degree. The appellate court affirmed. At trial, the state claimed that Defendant stole corporate funds from his employer in order to purchase artwork. Defendant conceded that he took the funds but asserted in his defense that he lacked the wrongful intent necessary for first degree larceny. At issue on appeal was whether the appellate court properly concluded that the State had presented sufficient evidence of Defendant's intent to commit larceny. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to find that Defendant had the necessary intent to commit larceny.

Petitioners, George Gould and Ronald Taylor, were arrested and charged with, inter alia, murder, felony murder, and robbery in the first degree. The jury acquitted Petitioners of the murder charge but convicted them on all of the other counts. Subsequently, Petitioners filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and actual innocence. The habeas court granted the petitions and vacated the convictions, concluding that petitioners had established their entitlement to relief on the basis of actual innocence because two of the state's witnesses had recanted their testimony. Respondent, the commissioner of correction, appealed. The Supreme Court reversed the habeas court's judgments, holding that, under the test set forth in Miller v. Commissioner of Correction, actual innocence requires affirmative evidence that Petitioners did not commit the crimes of which they were convicted, not simply the discrediting of evidence on which the conviction rested. Remanded for a new trial under the proper standard.

Plaintiff and Defendant were former husband and wife. Following the dissolution of their marriage, Defendant was granted joint custody and visitation rights of the parties' two daughters. Defendant then reported that her eldest daughter had been sexually abused by Plaintiff. As a result of the investigation, Defendant was charged with risk of injury to a child, false reporting of an incident, false statement in the second degree, attempt to commit malicious prosecution, and sexual assault in the fourth degree. Following Defendant's guilty plea, Plaintiff filed a complaint sounding in intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court found in favor of Plaintiff. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court improperly improperly applied the continuing course of conduct doctrine to toll the statute of limitations and that Plaintiff's claim was time barred. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court, holding that the appellate court improperly concluded that the existence of an original duty must be established before applying the continuing course of conduct doctrine to toll the statute of limitations in a nonnegligence cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count each of possession of narcotics, possession of a controlled substance, interfering with an officer, and tampering with physical evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in (1) denying Defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence taken from the motor vehicle that Defendant was operating at the time of his arrest; (2) concluding that there was sufficient evidence to sustain Defendant's conviction on the possessory charges; (3) admitting Defendant's unredacted medical records into evidence; and (4) instructing the jury as to the State's burden of proof.